HOME
          
LATEST STORY
Constantly tweaking: How The Guardian continues to develop its in-house analytics system
ABOUT                    SUBSCRIBE
Oct. 28, 2011, 2:30 p.m.

This post won’t save journalism. (Sorry.)

No tool will. And that’s okay.

Every few weeks, the new media hype cycle begins again. Some new tool or website comes out that makes some technically difficult aspect of news-gathering or production much simpler, and then that old questionWill it save journalism? — gets asked again, analyzed for a few days, and kicked to the curb under ridicule from obnoxious snarkmongers like myself.

While it’s usually right to celebrate the “it” in the will-it-save-journalism game — when the “it” in question, that is, is a legitimately awesome new tool for making things — it’s also worth considering what we’re saying when we talk about “saving journalism” in the first place. What we’re really looking for is something that will tame the complex work of reporting itself. What we see in each new tool is the frothy hope that it will be, somehow, The One.

But it never will be. There is no tool that will make the journalism simple. But that’s actually a good thing. Here’s why.

In 1975, Fred Brooks came out with a book, The Mythical Man-Month: Essays on Software Engineering. The collection remains a pertinent classic, since we developers have a remarkable talent for continually making the same mistakes. The title essay demolishes the practice of estimating a programming task as man-months of work evenly divided among a team. Reality is rarely so obliging. (For instance, adding people to a late project will actually make it later, since those newcomers need to be brought up to speed by the workers already behind schedule.) In 1986, Brooks added an essay to the collection, “No Silver Bullet,” which explored why programming is so hard for most people. Shouldn’t there by now be programming tools so simple that any novice can code whatever they want? Shouldn’t all journalists be programmers? In programming, difficulty is almost always synonymous with complexity — but programming has remained difficult despite decades of progress in hardware speeds and software techniques. Why?

The best hope is to grow the skills of developers. Invest in people rather than in tools.

To answer that, Brooks pulled the concepts of accident and essence all the way back from Aristotle. The accidental complexity of software development, he said, involves those problems attendant to the production of code but not related to what the code is meant to do. Programming long ago involved writing tedious, low-level assembly language for computers with comically limited operations and memory. Since then, we’ve seen numerous advances like compilers, higher-level languages, new programming paradigms, comprehensive open-source tools, and an astounding increase of computing power each year.

All those major advances in computer science, Brooks argues, have been advances against the accidental complexity of writing programs. But the essential complexity of conceptualizing those programs remains unchecked. There is no tool (or, to bring a much-needed werewolf reference into the discussion, a “silver bullet“) that will save programming from its essential complexity, he declares; the best hope is instead to grow the skills of developers. Invest in people rather than in tools.

Despite our best hopes, good journalism remains hard, and there is no silver bullet that will mitigate that.

Sound familiar? Newspapers aren’t assembling their editions with hot lead anymore. On the web, quick and dirty hacks we hand-coded a few years ago are the frameworks of today and the nostalgia of tomorrow. On top of that, we occasionally get new tools that further chip away at some of the accidental complexity of digital journalism. But the essential complexity remains. Despite our best hopes, good journalism remains hard, and there is no silver bullet that will mitigate that. But that’s actually a good thing.

Accidentally complex processes are repeatable and predictable; the tools can be improved because the problems are known. The essential complexity in journalism is there because good journalism is by its definition not something that’s been done before. Yes, there are new tools for slideshows and timelines. Even tools for generic reporting like game recaps are coming, but a tool can’t explain why the team has been choking lately or explore the troubling rise in concussions across the sport. A tool might be able to create a shiny artistic jumble for you, but it can’t find you the story in there or explain to your readers why they should care. The essential complexity is not to be abhorred, it’s to be celebrated. So embrace that. Stop hoping for a silver bullet. Learn to program. And remember, no tool will save journalism.

You will.

Image by Daniel Goude used under a Creative Commons license.

POSTED     Oct. 28, 2011, 2:30 p.m.
SHARE THIS STORY
   
Show comments  
Show tags
 
Join the 15,000 who get the freshest future-of-journalism news in our daily email.
Constantly tweaking: How The Guardian continues to develop its in-house analytics system
Since its launch in 2011, The Guardian has consistently made changes to its in-house analytics tool, Ophan.
Bloomberg Business’ new look has made a splash — but don’t just call it a redesign
Bloomberg digital editor Joshua Topolsky on uncomfortable news design, new ad units, and why they killed the comments.
Newsonomics: From national, Politico expands into global — and local
Having a built a business model around targeting influentials, Politico is testing how many ways it can replicate it. Why aren’t other news companies learning its lessons?
What to read next
2588
tweets
Don’t try too hard to please Twitter — and other lessons from The New York Times’ social media desk
The team that runs the Times’ Twitter accounts looked back on what they learned — what worked, what didn’t — from running @NYTimes in 2014.
728From explainers to sounds that make you go “Whoa!”: The 4 types of audio that people share
How can public radio make audio that breaks big on social media? A NPR experiment identified what makes a piece of audio go viral.
722Q&A: Amy O’Leary on eight years of navigating digital culture change at The New York Times
“In 2007, as digital people, we were expected to be 100 percent deferent to all traditional processes. We weren’t to bother reporters or encourage them to operate differently at all, because what they were doing was the very core of our journalism.”
These stories are our most popular on Twitter over the past 30 days.
See all our most recent pieces ➚
Fuego is our heat-seeking Twitter bot, tracking the links the future-of-journalism crowd is talking about most on Twitter.
Here are a few of the top links Fuego’s currently watching.   Get the full Fuego ➚
Encyclo is our encyclopedia of the future of news, chronicling the key players in journalism’s evolution.
Here are a few of the entries you’ll find in Encyclo.   Get the full Encyclo ➚
Futurity
Windy Citizen
PolitiFact
Medium
The Chronicle of Higher Education
Talking Points Memo
The Philadelphia Inquirer & Daily News
Circa
DocumentCloud
Storify
Ushahidi
Foursquare